MySpace

painkillers without a prescription
painkillers without a prescription

Christina



Last Updated: 4/1/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Female
Status: Married
State: Illinois

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
May 12, 2008 - Monday 

Current mood:  uncomfortable
Category: Life
April 30, 2008 - Wednesday 

Current mood:  blah
Category: Fashion, Style, Shopping
I am taking a break from PR right now... I am offering you some sweet specials on the items I have in stock... I only have one of each of these unless otherwise specified...   to view photos & more details of each item please visit www.pureromance.com

Super Stretch Blue (male pleasure sleeve) $26 reg. $15 now

Romantica (creamy massage oil) $12 reg. $7 now

Time In A Bottle (time extender for him) $10 reg. $6 now

Booty Eaze (anal numbing cream) $9.50 reg. $6 now

Like A Virgin (24 hour tightening cream) $16.50 reg. $9 now

Coochy (rash free shave cream that gets rid of the deadly itch and doubles as a conditioner) $10.50 reg. $6 now

Pure Pleasure (premium lube) $12 reg. $7 now

Dust Me Pink (perfumed sensual edible body powder) $12.50 reg. $7 now

Body Dew (moisturizing after bath/sun bathing oil mist with pharamones) $12.50 reg. $7 now (2)

Ex-T-Cee (flavored heightener - 1 - strawberry & 1- Chocolate Chip Mint) $12 reg. $7 now (2)

Bosom Buddy (tingly lip/nipple balm strawberry flavored) $10.50 reg. $6 now

Ice Ice Baby (dual action vibe with rotating pearls) $42.50 reg. $25 now

Double Trouble Ring (2 bullets + 1 c-ring = great doggy style) $29.50 reg. $16 now

G-Money (g-spot vibe) $19.50 reg. $10 now


Please pass this on and if you have any questions please contact me on YIM or by e-mail at giftsgalore60534@yahoo.com S&H is $5 and that includes tracking (it will be slightly higher if you get more than one item)
March 26, 2008 - Wednesday 

Current mood:  cheerful

Glucosamine Sulphate Relieves Osteoarthritis

Mar 15, 2008

I see a lot of different issues in my practice, and these can broadly be divided into what you might call "primary" and "secondary" concerns. I see primary concerns as the sort of things that cause individuals to make appointments to see me. Common examples include fatigue, irritable bowel syndrome, asthma, and eczema.

On the other hand, secondary concerns tend not to be volunteered, and may only come out while I’m doing a review of all health issues. One common secondary issue relates to the joints. For example, I may see individuals who have a tendency to pain and stiffness in one or more joints, generally as a result of wear and tear, also known as osteoarthritis. Many of these individuals have sustained sporting injuries, after which they may find the joint never was "quite right."

Of all the joints to be affected in this way, I find the knee to be the most common. Not only is this one of the major weight-bearing joints in the body, but also it is prone to injury during the twisting and turning and abnormal forces induced by, say, skiing, rugby, football, squash, or tennis.

Appropriate physical therapy (e.g. physiotherapy, osteopathy, biomechanical assessment, and management) has its part to play in such cases. However, from a nutritional perspective, a mainstay of the management I advise is the agent glucosamine sulphate. This substance is a basic building block in cartilage and other soft tissues such as ligament and tendon.

While not all research is utterly consistent, there is evidence that supplementation with glucosamine sulphate can be effective in the relief of osteoarthritis, including that affecting the knee [1–4]. In practice, I find glucosamine to be generally very effective in improving the function of the knee joint and reducing discomfort. It can be a critical factor in allowing individuals to retain active, productive lives.

I was therefore interested to read a recent study that looked at the relationship between supplementation with glucosamine sulphate and risk of requiring a subsequent knee replacement [5].

Knee replacement surgery is usually the final option for individuals suffering from osteoarthritis of the knee who have been unable to find appropriate relief using other means. In theory at least, glucosamine sulphate may enhance the health of the joint, including its cartilage, and this may lead to being spared surgery.

In this study, 275 individuals were followed through time. For the purposes of the analysis, individuals were divided into two groups: those who in previous studies had taken glucosamine sulphate for at least one year and up to three years, and those who in previous studies had taken a placebo.

The participants in this study were followed for an average of five years following the time that they discontinued the medication or placebo.

The results of this study found:

Those who had previously taken glucosamine were 57 percent less likely to have knee replacement compared to those who had taken a placebo. Those who had previously taken glucosamine used less medication and health resources generally compared to those who had taken a placebo.

This study supports the use of glucosamine sulphate for the treatment of wear and tear and osteoarthritis of the knee. In particular, this agent seems to help keep people off the operating table.

References:

1. Pupate JM, et al. Double blind clinical evaluation of oral glucosamine sulphate in the basic treatment of osteoarthrosis. Current Medical Research Opinion 1980; 2:110–114
2. Covanta A, et al. Therapeutic activity of oral glucosamine sulphate in osteoarthritis: a placebo-controlled double-blind investigation Clinical Therapeutics 1980; 3(4): 266–272
3. Noack W, et al. Glucosamine sulphate in osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 1994; 2:51–59
4. Muller-Fabbender H, et al. Glucosamine sulphate compared to ibuprofen in osteoarthritis of the knee Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 1994; 2:61–69
5. Bruyere O, et al. Total joint replacement after glucosamine sulphate treatment in knee osteoarthritis: results of a mean 8-year observation of patients from two previous 3-year, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 2008; 16(2): 254–60.

Dr. John Briffa is a London-based doctor and author with an interest in nutrition and natural medicine.
Dr. Briffa’s Web site

March 26, 2008 - Wednesday 

Current mood:  worried
Category: Life

The War on Superbugs

Lots of bad news—so little good news

Mar 13, 2008

"We are in the midst of an emerging crisis of antibiotic resistance for microbial pathogens in the United States and throughout the world." So starts a report entitled "The Epidemic of Antibiotic-Resistant Infections," published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2008:46, Jan. 15, page 155.

As of the year 2000, an estimated 70,000 deaths due to nosocomially acquired [hospital acquired] drug-resistant infections occurred per year in hospitals throughout the United States. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus seriously sickened more than 94,000 Americans in 2005, and almost 19,000 died—more than the 17,000 Americans who died of AIDS-related causes.

As more bacteria become resistant to the old antibiotics, there are few new antibiotics being developed; most pharmaceutical companies have withdrawn from research for new antibiotics, in part because developing new antibiotics is a slow and costly process.

In Canada, the official body counters tell us that "an estimated 220,000 patients who walk through the doors of hospitals each year suffer the unintended and often devastating consequences of an infection," and they estimate that 8,000 to 12,000 Canadian patients die annually from such infections. That would mean that from Jan. 1, 2000, to April 30, 2008, there will have been 100,000 Canadian victims of superbug infections.

Against so much bad news, it would be logical that the news media would jump on any opportunity to publish any good news. So when the Bacteriophage 2008 meeting in Herefordshire was chosen for the release of initial Phase II clinical trial data of the first fully regulated clinical trial to test whether phage therapy really works as a treatment option for superbug infections, one would have expected a media flurry, especially since the trial reported positive results.

To date, only two such reports can be found when using Google-News with the string "phage therapy." The first report that this author found was entitled "Technology to defeat bacterial infections shows positive results" and was published by Disease/Infection News, 25-Feb.-2008 at http://www.news-medical.net/print_article.asp?id=35541

In this trial, U.K. company Biocontrol Ltd. used bacteriophages against Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria, which are often resistant to traditional antibiotics. Over a 17-month period a double-blind Phase II trial took place at a specialist London hospital, involving 24 patients with chronic ear infections that were not responding to antibiotic treatments.

Significant improvements amounting to a mean 50 percent reduction in symptoms were noted as compared to a mean of only 20 percent in the control group, which did not receive phages. "Originally designed for 40 patients, the trial was halted after 24, as patients seemed to be getting better. The company, working with the clinicians in charge, has decided to move on with bringing such a potentially important treatment to the market as quickly as possible. We are also planning to offer phage treatment to the patients who did not receive it during the trial," said Dr. Harper.

Biocontrol’s founder and Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. David Harper, stated: "This is the first fully-regulated double-blind clinical trial of the efficacy of a phage treatment, and is exactly what is needed to find out whether such a treatment really works. The fact that patients seem to have been getting better is the most exciting thing. Obviously a major part of the trial was monitoring to ensure that the treatments were safe—and there were no reportable safety events throughout, another very positive result."

Commenting on the successful outcome, the clinical director of the trials, Professor Tony Wright, consultant ENT surgeon at the Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital in London, said: "All the patients had long histories of ear problems that had failed to respond to all sorts of treatments including topical and oral antibiotics, and sometimes even surgery. Some had had problems for more than 40 years."

The company now plans to perform Phase III trials for the ear treatment as soon as possible and is looking at the future possibility of treating patients with cystic fibrosis where lung infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa are common and dangerous.

Dr. Riedel, briedel@magma.ca, has a Ph.D. in Microbiology/Food Science. He has held various positions in research, industrial food science, and consumer product regulatory affairs in Canada.

March 26, 2008 - Wednesday 

Current mood:  chipper
Category: Life

Vegetables Tied to Lower Breast Cancer Risk

Mar 20, 2008

NEW YORK—Cruciferous vegetables may help lower the risk of developing breast cancer, particularly for women who carry a particular gene variant linked to the disease, a new study suggests.

Researchers found that among more than 6,000 Chinese women, those with the highest intake of Chinese cabbage and white turnips had a somewhat lower risk of postmenopausal breast cancer than those with the lowest intake.

The findings, reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, add to evidence that compounds in cruciferous vegetables may help fight cancer.

Chinese cabbage and white turnips are two cruciferous vegetables common in the Chinese diet; in Western diets, the most common cruciferous vegetables include broccoli, cauliflower, and kale. The vegetables contain certain compounds that the body converts into substances called isothiocyanates, which are thought to have anti-cancer effects.

In the current study, high consumption of Chinese cabbage and white turnips was linked to a moderately lower breast cancer risk. But the apparent benefit was stronger among women who carried two copies of a particular variant of a gene called GSTP1.

Among these women, those with the highest intake of any cruciferous vegetables had about half the risk of breast cancer as those who ate the fewest, according to the researchers, led by Dr. Sang-Ah Lee of Vanderbilt University in Nashville.

GSTP1 is an enzyme that helps detoxify the body of potentially cancer-causing substances. Some studies have suggested that having a particular form of the gene—the Val variant—may raise a woman’s risk of breast cancer.

The current study found that women who carried two copies of the Val variant did, in fact, have a higher risk of developing breast cancer before menopause than women who had other variants in the GSTP1 gene.

But the excess risk was cut substantially in those who ate the most cruciferous vegetables.

"We cautiously interpreted this as diet being a factor that may reduce the impact of genetic susceptibility in overall breast cancer risk," Dr. Jay Fowke, one of the researchers on the work, said in a statement.

It’s possible, according to Fowke and his colleagues, that people who carry two Val variants of the GSTP1 gene excrete the beneficial isothiocyanates more quickly, and eating more cruciferous vegetables helps counter this.

More research, they conclude, is needed to better understand how cruciferous vegetables might modify breast cancer risk.

Source: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, March 2008

March 26, 2008 - Wednesday 

Current mood:  ashamed
Category: Life

HRT Promoter Wyeth Unfazed Despite Legal Losses

Mar 17, 2008

Madison, N.J.-based hormone maker Wyeth has lost four of seven Premarin and Prempro cases since hormone replacement therapy (HRT) trials began in 2006.

But it’s not backing down

It’s appealing the February award of $58 million to three Nevada women who say its products gave them cancer. Washoe County District Judge Robert Perry originally awarded Jeraldine Scoffed, 74, of Fallon; Arlene Rowatt, 68, of Incline Village; and Pamela Forrester, 65, of Yerington $134 million, but later reduced the amount.

Wyeth is also appealing $2.75 million awarded to Donna Scraggy, 66, of Little Rock, Ark., in February; she had a double mastectomy after taking Wyeth drugs for 10 years.

Wyeth lawyers claimed Scraggy had a history of breast cancer on both sides of her family and would have gotten the disease anyway. But Scroggin’s cancer was hormone-receptor positive—activated by external hormones invading surrounding tissue—not genetic, argued her attorney, James Morris, during the trial.

Little Rock jurors agreed with Morris and found Wyeth and Pfizer’s Pharmacia & Upjohn showed ’’reckless disregard’’ for their products’ risks.

"This verdict should make the Wyeth folks ask whether they really want to try the more than 5,000 cases they face over these drugs," observed Ken Rothweiler, another lawyer trying HRT cases.

Since the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study found HRT caused a 26 percent increased risk of breast cancer, 29 percent increased risk of heart attack, 41 percent increased risk of stroke, and 100 percent increased risk of blood clots in 2002, new dangers are described in medical journals regularly. And they’re not as easy to appeal.

A study in the January issue of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention found women who took hormone replacement therapy for just three years had four times the usual risk of lobular breast cancer, a cancer which accounts for about 10 percent of invasive breast cancers.

The next month, an article appeared in the Archives of Internal Medicine that found HRT, in addition to increased breast cancer risk, caused abnormal mammograms in 1 out of 10 woman and abnormal breast biopsies in 1 out of 25 women after just five years of use. A year after HRT termination, compromised "diagnostic performance" was still seen in the studied women.

"This adverse effect on breast cancer detection should be incorporated into risk-benefit discussions with women considering even short-term combined hormone therapy," wrote the authors.

And in March, another study appeared in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, this time finding that estrogen levels were almost twice as high in the blood of breast cancer patients with recurring cancer as in those who were cancer free.

"Women who have already been treated for breast cancer should do as much as they can do to reduce estrogen in their blood, such as exercising frequently and keeping weight down," said lead author, Cheryl L. Rock of the University of California, San Diego.

The same week the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) ran a new analysis of WHI data and found that three years after stopping HRT, WHI participants had more lung cancer and greater mortality than non-hormone users.

"Estrogen receptors occur in non-small-cell lung cancer, and although results are mixed, post menopausal hormone therapy use has been found to be associated with significantly decreased survival in women with lung cancer in one recent report," wrote the authors.

And there was more bad news

Two and a half year years after stopping HRT, stroke, pulmonary emboli, and deep vein thrombosis risks diminished, say the authors, but invasive breast cancer did not.

The analysis even quashed the one "benefit" thought to belong to HRT—a possible decreased risk of colorectal cancer. The decrease disappeared when hormone therapy was stopped.

Even the journal Military Medicine had a discouraging word for Wyeth and HRT.

In January, it found that 66 percent of female veterans who used hormone therapy in 2001 had discontinued by 2004, and that "clinical diagnoses such as heart disease and mastectomy were significantly associated with discontinuation."

Wyeth might even see them in court.



March 26, 2008 - Wednesday 

Current mood:  betrayed
Category: Life

Some Illinois Vaccines Still Legally Laced With Mercury

LETHAL DOSE: Although Illinois passed landmark legislation that limits mercury levels in vaccines to 1.25 micrograms per dose by the first of this year and eliminates mercury all together by January 1st 2008, the Illinois Department of Public Health has issued a declaration of exemption which allows four vaccines to exceed the limit.

Despite the new Illinois law that limits mercury levels in vaccines, the Illinois Department of Public Health has declared 4 vaccines with high levels of mercury exempt from the law.

Before you roll up your child’s sleeve—and yours— for a flu vaccine this year, you’d be wise to check the package insert to see if it contains what many say are toxic levels of mercury. Although Illinois passed landmark legislation that limits mercury levels in vaccines to 1.25 micrograms per dose by the first of this year and eliminates mercury all together by January 1st 2008, the Illinois Department of Public Health has issued a declaration of exemption which allows four vaccines to exceed the limit. In addition to the flu vaccine, the diphtheria-tetanus, Japanese encephalitis and meningitis vaccines are also exempted from the law. The Illinois Department of Public Health claims the mercury-free versions of these vaccines are either too expensive, in short supply or non-existent, hence they have allowed thimerosal, the mercury-laden preservative in these vaccines to persist. In the case of the flu vaccine — that means a whopping 25 micrograms of mercury per dose.

Dr. David Ayoub, Assistant Prof. of Southern Illinois University School of Medicine and Medical Director of Prairie Collaborative, an immunization watchdog organization in Springfield says the mercury contained in one dose of the flu vaccine exceeds both the EPA’s and CDC’s adult toxicity limits for organic mercury exposure and could be considered a toxic waste. "For mercury level to be defined as toxic waste level is 200 parts per billion. What is contained in a mercury vaccine vial is 50,000 parts per billion, so if you were to drop a vaccine vial, you would have to call hazmat. I mean that’s a toxic hazard and we are injecting toxic waste levels of mercury into people and that’s unimaginable."

David Carvalho, Deputy Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health says IDPH is committed to moving in the direction of preservative-free vaccines because there is the perception on the part of the public that mercury in vaccines is unsafe, however, he says "there is no scientific basis to be concerned about thimerosal in vaccines."

Laura Cellini, the mother of a recovering autistic child disagrees. "He should probably go do his homework because there’s a lot of scientific evidence and we discussed this when we did the bill." Cellini’s son, Jonathan was diagnosed with autism at the age of two after he suddenly regressed when he was about a year and a half old. Her experience and research convinced Cellini that her son’s symptoms that included an impaired immune system and temper tantrums were signs of mercury poisoning. "If we find it coming out of coal burning power plants it’s a neurotoxin. If we find it in our fish or drinking water, it’s a neurotoxin. If we find it in a thermometer it’s a neurotoxin. Just because you now take it and put it in a vaccine does not mean that it is no longer a neurotoxic substance."

IDPH’s Cavalho is quick to point out that the mercury found in the environment and ingested is methylmercury, a different form of the liquid metal than ethylmercury found in thimerosal. He says it is not fair to use EPA’s limit (.1 microgram of methylmercury per kilogram of body weight per day) as the toxicity measure for both kinds of mercury. "When you do that calculation and compare it to EPA standards and indicated that EPA standards would be violated then EPA would have banned the vaccine and they haven’t."

Yet the EPA standards are indeed cited by other government agencies for measuring safe doses of the ethylmercury. According to the May 2003 report by the House Subcommittee on Government Reform chaired by Congressman Dan Burton, Republican from Indiana, the Institute of Medicine and the FDA have stated that "in the absence of a specific standard for ethylmercury, the limits for ingested methylmercury should be used for injected ethylmercury." By these measures, Dr. David Ayoub says that an adult who weighs about 150 pounds would receive about 3 and a half times the EPA’s daily limit organic mercury in one dose of the flu shot. He says a child will receive 11 to 16 times what the EPA considers safe and a fetus will exceed the EPA limit by several hundred times. " Our biggest concern is giving mercury to pregnant women. The fetus is going to get the largest dose of mercury in Illinois. That’s clearly the most vulnerable citizen."

A recent study suggests that ethylmercury may be even more harmful than methylmercury. Professor Tom Burbacher of the University of Washington’s Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences compared the two kinds of mercury by injecting macaque monkeys with thimerosal at the rate experienced by young children while feeding methylmercury to another group of monkeys at the same rate through their food. He found that although the blood levels of injected ethylmercury dropped faster than the blood levels of ingested methylmercury, ethylmercury had the potential to stay in the brain and cause damage. "Once the mercury gets in your brain it actually could be transferred into another chemical form, into inorganic mercury and inorganic mercury actually stays in the brain for a lot longer than organic mercury does. And there have been studies that show inorganic mercury in primates show that inorganic mercury can also cause a neuroinflammatory response in the brain." In fact, Burbacher says, the inorganic mercury level in the brain was probably twice as high in the monkeys who received thimerosal than the monkeys who ingested methylmercury. "It wasn’t peculiar to one animal or two it was a group response."

Illinois’ attempt to phase out mercury preservatives in vaccines has caught the eye of many advocates across the country. Laura Cellini says she has received calls from New Jersey to Hawaii from those seeking similar legislation in their state. Although the new law doesn’t help autistic children like her son, Jonathan, Cellini, had hoped it would save future children from slipping into autism and she says hearing about the exemption made her frustrated.

"I found it very disrespectful of the process. We have a democratic legislative process in place in this country and that’s what we went through to get this law, and the fact that the department of public health stated that they don’t agree with it and therefore they’re going to exempt it, I find to be very disrespectful of the process and the players.

Senator Don Harmon of Oak Park, a key sponsor of the law, admits that it allows the IDPH to declare exemptions but said he was disappointed to see the department had granted an exemption so quickly. "We put the provision in there purposefully to avoid a situation where there was a risk of an epidemic or a shortage of available vaccines but it’s not clear to me that there was a shortage of thimerosal-free vaccine this year."

David Cavalho of the Illinois Department of Public Health agrees that there were enough infant doses of thimerosal-free flu vaccine but says that children three years and older receive the adult vaccine which would have been too expensive for the state to buy. "The difference for us is the difference between the 60,000 doses that we were allocated by the government at zero cost and 60,000 doses at full cost. I believe the full cost for preservative-free vaccine is between twelve and fourteen dollars. So if we were to purchase 60,000 doses at full cost to replace the vaccines that we are getting for free it would cost between $740,000 and $840,000 dollars."

Barbara Mullarkey, president of the Illinois Vaccine Awareness Coalition, believes the Illinois Department of Public Health has the responsibility to inform citizens that the vaccines they are about to receive exceed the state’s mercury limit. "I think they have a responsibility even though it was not in the law. What is the mission of the IDPH? I thought it was to protect the public." Mullarkey hopes every physician, nurse or pharmacist will allow patients to read the package inserts of any vaccine before they are administered so that they can "decide if they in fact do want to put this into their body or into their child’s body."

Senator Don Harmon says he may consider more restrictive legislation if the exemptions continue. "I hope not, but I’m certainly willing to consider that if we don’t get the sort of cooperation from the department that I hope we will get."

Reprinted from http://chicago.indymedia.org Mar 04, 2006
February 24, 2008 - Sunday 

Current mood:  ashamed
Category: Fashion, Style, Shopping
28  Reasons to Switch Stores

If you need more read "A Consumers Dictionary of Household Yard and Office Chemicals" By Ruth Winters. You can find a copy at your local Library.
 
Isopropyl Alcohol- poisonous, toxic & carcinogenic
Isopropanol- poisonous, toxic & carcinogenic
Benzol - (benzene) poisonous, toxic & carcinogenic *
Chlorine - poisonous, toxic & carcinogenic                 
Phenol - highly toxic & highly carcinogenic major killer in the US
Ammonia - highly toxic & carcinogenic *
Halogenated hydrocarbons - highly toxic & carcinogenic
Aromatic amines - carcinogenic
Amino Azobenzene-  carcinogenic
Methylene Chloride - poisonous, toxic, birth defects & carcinogenic
Perthloroethylene - poisonous, toxic, birth defects & carcinogenic
Sodium Nitrite - carcinogenic
Toluene - toxic & carcinogenic
Xylene - toxic & carcinogenic
Isoamyl Alcohol - toxic & carcinogenic
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene - carcinogenic
Diethylene Glycol - poisonous
Diethyl Ether - poisonous
Sodium Hydroxide - causes lung damage & destructive effect upon tissue
Sodium Hypochlorite (bleaches)- poisonous & toxic
Borax  - toxic
Hydrochloric Acid - poisonous toxic
Phosphorus highly - poisonous & toxic (explosive)
Dichlorine monoxide - extremely toxic
Chlorine monoxide - extremely toxic
Chlorine dioxide - extremely toxic
Chlorine hexoxide - extremely toxic
Chlorine heptoxide - extremely toxic

Reducing the exposure to carcinogens is one of the "Major Recommendations for cancer prevention." The American Cancer Society.

Charles Jacobson, compliance officer of the US. Consumer Product and Safety Commission in the area of toxic chemicals, said, "If every carcinogenic ingredient were banned, there would be hardly any products on the market.

The above banning would not effect any of our products even if it were extended too include products that were poisonous and or toxic.
Are you troubled by respiratory problems, liver damage, kidney problems, chest pains, rashes, dizziness, convulsions, shortness of breath, vomiting, diarrhea, tremors, fatigue, headaches, nervousness, nausea, drowsiness, irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and skin or cancer ?

Well, it is likely caused by the "SEA OF CHEMICALS YOU ARE LIVING IN"!

Why would you want to do that? Discover us and live a healthier life... 
February 24, 2008 - Sunday 

Current mood:  betrayed
Category: Life
This was given to me from a friend of mine and after doing my research I have found every bit of this to be true and this is just a small part of WHY we are a part of the WDT...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORMALDEHYDE in BABY SHAMPOO!?!?!?

Sounds to horrible to be true!!! Right?

Well, I have completed some very basic research after one of my sons had been burdened most of his life with severe eczema, and what seemed to be an endless amount of co-pays for Rx’s flying out of our pocket month after month...AND all the unpronounceable contents of the NEW and WONDERFUL creams and lotions that really never worked...

Thinking back to my medical training as a Hospital Corpsman in the U.S. Navy, I thought, now the skin IS the largest organ that our bodies has, we absorb medications through the "patches" for HRT and to quit smoking, with these placed on our skin...  so if what we are washing our clothes in is irritating, could the chemicals from the laundry detergent be absorbed into our systems???

YOU BET!

I stopped using my detergent that contained a high level of Phosphates and went on my search for something SAFER, non-caustic.

Then I took a look at the baby shampoo and researched the last few ingredients listed on the back, what was Quaternium 15? To my utter disbelief, it was FORMALDEHYDE! With a very STRONG family history of cancer, my husband and I continued our search for something safer!!!

After not using the baby shampoo that contains this cancer causing preservative in it, my sons skin disorder began to clear! Then I changed our laundry soap, and his lotion and so on ... Unfortunately, his skin is scarred from the prolonged skin disorder, but gratefully we can say now and see him now and there is no more waking up with scratch marks on his skin from fiercely scratching himself in his sleep, the eczema has cleared and we are all very thrilled!

Let me educate you a bit...

Formaldehyde is a preservative, Formaldehyde is also a highly toxic substance. It is a known cancer-causing agent. It damages the neurological connectors in the body. It is an irritant to the eyes, nose, throat and lungs and may cause:

skin reactions
ear infections
headaches
depression
asthma
joint pain
dizziness
mental confusion
nausea
disorientation
phlebitis
fatigue
vomiting
sleep disturbances
laryngitis
and the list goes on...

There are over 30 different names for this "preservative" that is used in baby shampoos, baby lotions, cosmetics, tooth paste and antiperspirants, just to name a FEW... This is a very cheap way for some companies to make their product last longer! We, the consumer, must educate our selves, there is a SAFER HEALTHIER WAY!

Some of the different names that are used in products containing Formaldehyde are:
(* =trade name)
Formalin
Methanal
Methyl Aldehyde
Methylene Oxide
Oxymethylene
Bfv*
Fannoform*
Formol*
Fyde*
Karsan*
Methaldehyde
Formalith*
Methylene Glycol
Ivalon*
Oxomethane
and let us not leave out Quaternium 15, this is the one used in the baby care products!

SO, cheaper is not always BETTER. There is a safer, HEALTHIER way to shop WHOLESALE for products that DO not contain this harmful chemical AND products that will NOT break the bank!

In closing, let us BE and LIVE as educated consumers! Let us protect and nurture our family!

If you want to know more please contact me directly either through my page or by phone @ 708-333-8827 from 12pm to 9pm CST
January 17, 2008 - Thursday 

Current mood:  hopeful
Category: Life
Dear Friends,

My eyes were opened when I learned of the many toxins in my home.

I had never given much thought about the likelihood of cleaning products I was using seriously harming, even killing, my kids.

I mean, are you aware of that? There are so many startling statistics and I encourage you to read through the enclosed materials because it could greatly enhance your family’s lives.

I am confident that that the 5 minutes you take now will be worth a lifetime of having peace of mind. As a wife and mother, I want the best for my family. After being introduced to this incredible company, I was alarmed at what I found out!

a. Chlorine Bleach can burn; irritate skin, eyes, and the respiratory system

b. Ammonia can be damaging to the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract

c. Air fresheners contain toxins that include Formaldehyde and Phenol

d. Dishwashing detergents contain dry chlorine, which is the 1 cause of poisoning according to poison control

e. Furniture polish contains Petroleum Distillates, which can cause skin and lung cancer

These just name a few.

You can do a smell test on your household cleaners.

Quite simply the more they smell the more the toxins.

Another fact for all those moms who stay at home cleaning day in and day out:

According to the National Cancer Society, a 15 year study found that stay at home women are at higher risk of cancer!

Also, children with chronic lung infections, asthma, allergies, and Cystic Fibrosis are actually at risk when Mom cleans the house!

We wouldn’t dream of letting our children breathe poisonous fumes intentionally, yet we do it every time we try to ..protect’ them by cleaning the house!

I can rest assured that by changing my household over to our products, my house is a cleaner, safer place for my family.

But you do not have to take my word for it.

Please visit the below websites for yourself.

These websites are very educational and informative.

They opened my eyes a lot to what I was exposing my family to.

See for yourself.

These sites are not related to us so you know that I am not being biased or trying to give you false information.

Visit these sites for more info:
http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2002/tows_past_20020531_c.jhtml

The Oprah Winfrey show investigates with Kelly Preston the dangers of household cleaning products.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/spotlight/2001-11-08-chec.htm

Olivia Newton-John and Kelly Preston shed light on why childhood cancer rates have increased 10.8% in the past decade.

Educating moms on toxins in the home
http://www.concernedmoms.com

Preventing harm
http://www.preventingharm.org/index.html

MSNBC Our Bodies, Our Landfills ?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3076636/

PBS
http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/

Health & Environment Resource Center
http://www.herc.org

Material Safety Data Sheets for Common Household Products
http:// www.herc.org/library/msds.htm.

Be sure to check out Formula 409, it has the following warning....

Health Hazards Acute And Chronic: EYES: IRRITATION. SKIN: ABSORBED. EXPOSURE TO ETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOBUTYL ETHER WILL CAUSE BLOOD & BONE MARROW DAMAGE

We should be protecting our skin and definitely not inhaling this stuff...

Are you taking precautions when using these products!? I wasn’t!

Formaldehyde Warning
http://www.birthdefects.org/abstracts/formaldehyde.html

Study done that Lists toxins found in peoples blood
http://www.bodyburden.org/

Dangers in Everyday Products
http://www.voy.com/28891/264.html

We have no choice but to breathe the air, eat the food, and drink the water, but we DO have a choice of what we put on our skin and what products we have in our homes.

Be sure the products you are using are free of potentially cancer-causing and toxic ingredients.

Rest assured that Melaleuca products do not contain any toxic chemicals.

After reading all of this material, I feel good knowing that I am making every effort to make my home a safe haven for my family.

My children are precious to me, and as the manager of my household I really appreciated a friend going out of her comfort level to tell me about a safe alternative!

I am not trying to scare anyone, I am just trying to inform you that you do have a choice ~ many of us don’t think we do.

Many Mom’s know that something in their home may be contributing to the illnesses they or their children face, but they are not sure what it might be exactly or what to do about it.

We are so thankful that we can offer you an alternative and we are thankful that you have decided to learn more about the chance to convert your home to safer products as well ~ that is something very positive that you have done for your family!

If you want to take action against the toxins in your home, I urge you to contact me right away.

I have converted my home to a safe, healthy home and no longer worry about my kids spraying Resolve in their face and having to be rushed to the emergency room.

Kids act fast, and sometimes we as parents, are just not quick enough in reacting.

Please contact me with ANY questions you may have.

Sincerely,
Christina T. ~ 708-333-8827
January 17, 2008 - Thursday 

Current mood:  ashamed
Category: Life
(The Associated Press) -- July 21, 2005
 
Cholesterol-lowering statin drugs do not help severely ill diabetics, and may even raise their risk of a deadly stroke, a study found. In the study, patients on Lipitor were twice as likely to die of a stroke.
 
It was the first major test of statins in diabetics who need dialysis machines to remove wastes from their bloodstream because their kidneys cannot do the job. The results are surprising because previous research showed Lipitor helped less severely ill diabetics.
 
Dr. Robert Stanton, who is chief of kidney diseases at Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston and was not involved in the study, said it may be too late to start diabetics on statins once their kidneys have failed.
 
The study was funded by Lipitor’s maker, Pfizer Inc., and involved 1,255 Europeans with Type 2 diabetes, in which the body cannot properly use insulin. The findings were reported in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine.
 
More than 120,000 Americans are on dialysis because of diabetes, and they have higher risks of heart disease, stroke and deaths than the general population and other diabetics. Lipitor is the world’s most prescribed medication. It and other statins have dramatically lowered such risks by reducing levels of LDL, or "bad" cholesterol.
 
The study, led by Dr. Christoph Wanner at the University of Wurzburg, Germany, tested a relatively low dose of Lipitor -- 20 milligrams a day -- against dummy pills and found virtually no difference four years later in participants’ combined risk of heart attacks, strokes and death.
 
This happened even though the drug reduced LDL levels to an average of 72 milligrams per deciliter of blood, close to the target of 70 that new federal cholesterol guidelines recommend for people at very high risk of heart disease.
 
There were 27 fatal strokes among the 619 people on Lipitor versus 13 among the 636 in the placebo group, a result the authors said was unexplained and could be just a chance finding, considering that previous research showed a benefit from the drug.
 
"It’s definitely a concern, but I don’t know from a single study that you can say for sure you shouldn’t use it in this population. It certainly raises your alarm levels," Stanton said.
 
 (Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
We have a safe alternative: Phytomega
 
What makes Phytomega work?

First, the phytosterols - (plant-derived molecules that mimic cholesterol) effectively block your body’s absorption of cholesterol in the intestine. Because the phytosterols in Phytomega mimic cholesterol, your body absorbs less cholesterol and less enters your bloodstream. The unabsorbed cholesterol passes out of your body as waste. By lowering these cholesterol levels, Phytomega helps reduce your risk of heart disease.
 
Second, omega-3 fatty acids are a form of polyunsaturated fat, a "good" fat. They are essential for good health, but your body cannot make these fatty acids.
 
In the 1970s, scientists made one of the first connections between omega-3 fatty acids and human health while studying the Inuit people of Greenland. The Inuit diet of whale, seal, and salmon is very high in fat, yet they suffer far less coronary heart disease than other populations.
 
Researchers realized these foods are rich in omega-3 fatty acids - which give the Inuit natural cardiovascular protection and other health benefits. These fatty acids help maintain healthy triglyceride levels in your body.
 
Research has shown that people with elevated triglyceride levels are at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease - specifically ischemic stroke* - as well as other risk factors, including diabetes and hypertension.  
January 17, 2008 - Thursday 

Current mood:  disgusted
Category: Friends
Dr. Joyce Woods worked as a medical/surgical nurse, public health nurse, nurse educator, nursing school administrator, occupational health consultant.

She holds Bachelor of Nursing, Bachelor of Arts (Specialist), Master of Education, and has completed her Doctoral Degree in the area of

"Indoor Air Pollution and it’s effect on your health".

A. Begin by thinking of your home as a toxic waste dump. The average home today contains 62 toxic chemicals - more than a chemistry lab at the turn of the century.

B. More than 72,000 synthetic chemicals have been produced since WWII.    

C. Less than 2% of synthetic chemicals have been tested for toxicity, mutagenic, carcinogenic, or birth defects.

D. The majority of chemicals have never been tested for long-term effects.

E. An EPA survey concluded that indoor air was 3 to 70 times more polluted than outdoor air.

F. Another EPA study stated that the toxic chemicals in household cleaners are 3 times more likely to cause cancer than outdoor air. .    

G. CMHC reports that houses today are so energy efficient that "outgassing" of chemicals has no where to go, so it builds up inside the home.

H. We spend 90% of our time indoor, and 65% of our time at home. Moms, infants and the elderly spend 90% of their time in the home.

I. National Cancer Association released results of a 15 year study concluding that women who work in the home are at a 54% higher risk of developing cancer than women who work outside the home.

J. Cancer rates have almost doubled since 1960.

K. Cancer is the Number ONE cause of death for children.

L. There has been a 26% increase in breast cancer since 1982. Breast cancer is the Number ONE killer of women between the ages of 35 and 54. Primary suspects are laundry detergents, household cleaners and pesticides.

M. There has been a call from the U.S./ Canadian Commission to ban bleach in North America. Bleach is being linked to the rising rates of breast cancer in women, reproductive problems in men and learning and behavioral problems in children.

N. Chemicals get into our body through inhalation, ingestion and absorption through pores of the skin.

O. We breathe 10 to 20 thousand liters of air per day.

P. There are more than 3 million poisonings every year. Household cleaners are the Number ONE cause of poisoning of children.

Q. Since 1980, asthma has increased by 600%. The Canadian Lung Association and the Asthma Society of Canada identify common household cleaners and cosmetics as triggers.

R. ADD/ADHD are epidemic in schools today. Behavioral problems have long been linked to exposure to toxic chemicals and molds. Use of Ritalin has skyrocketed since 1990.    

S. Chemical and environmental sensitivities are known to cause all types of headaches.

T. Labeling laws do not protect the consumer - they protect big business.

U. The New York Poison Control Center reports that 85% of product warning labels were either inadequate or incorrect for identifying a poison, and for first aid instructions.

V. Formaldehyde, phenol, benzene, toluene, xylene are found in common household cleaners, cosmetics, beverages, fabrics and cigarette smoke. These chemicals are cancer causing and toxic to the immune system.

W. Chemicals are attracted to, and stored in fatty tissue. The brain is a prime target for these destructive organics because of its high fat content and very rich blood supply.

X. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has found more than 2500 chemicals in cosmetics that are toxic, cause tumors, reproductive complications, biological mutations and skin and eye irritations.

Y. Fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, circulatory disorders, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, irritable bowel syndrome, depression, and hormonal problems are diseases commonly related to chemical exposure.

Z. Pesticides only have to include active ingredients on the labels, even though the inert (inactive) ingredients may account for 99%, many of which are toxic and poisons.

More facts from Indoor Air Pollution Seminar (These are notes from a seminar held on October 23rd, 1999)

Our homes should have a complete change of air 3 or 4 time a day. New homes are built so air tight that it is impossible to get a complete change of air.

We should leave our windows open on each side of our house for better cross ventilation.

In Alberta alone last year accidental poisoning statistics were as follows:

Between the ages of:   

0- 4years-          11, 515 poisonings
5-10years-         1,524   
11 -19 years      1,019    
20 and over        7,799    

Top three culprits - Household cleaners, bleach and medications.

In the USA the 1 cause of accidental poisoning is Dawn Dishwashing detergent.

WHY? Because it is the 1 seller.

The 1 polluter is Tide because it is the 1 seller and also contains Lye.

Deep Woods Off has an ingredient called DEET. DEET causes seizures in children and adults.

Inert (or inactive) ingredients in products are protected by trade secrets and very dangerous.

In the work place Material Safety Data Sheets must accompany any product used.

The work place and the outdoors are considered legal environments while the air in homes is not.

The ideal rate of humidity is between 35% and 45%.  Anything higher causes mold.

When we use humidifiers or de humidifiers with standing water we are encouraging mold growth with the standing water.

The ideal temperature in the home is between 68 degrees and 72 degrees, anything higher makes chemicals more active.

When we shower, the hot water combined with the chlorine in the water, can cause major headaches.   

Using aerosols causes dizziness.   

Steam from our dryer vents is extremely toxic, because of the chemicals from dryer sheets and residue from laundry soap and bleach.

Chemicals used to dry clean clothing are very dangerous and can cause cancer. When you bring dry cleaning home, you should hang it outside for at least 3 days.

Dry-cleaning chemicals are the same cancer causing chemicals that are found in moth balls.

There are 4700 chemicals in tobacco smoke.

Chemicals from carpets and plastic have been found to cause kidney and liver damage.

More products that contain Formaldehyde   

Antiperspirants                    Mouthwash
Toothpaste                          Permanent Press clothing
Tupperware                         Floor waxes and furniture polishes
Baggies                                Coffee
Money                                   Wax Paper

Some symptoms caused by formaldehyde are:
Allergies, cancer, immune system failure and asthma
    
Products that Contain Phenols

Acne medications                 Mouthwash                
Baking Powder                     Sugar substitutes              
Computers                             Wallpaper
Televisions            

Some symptoms caused by phenols, which are absorbed by lungs, and skin are: (besides being possibly fatal) caustic bums, kidney and liver damage and hyperactivity

Lysol" is even more dangerous than we thought. Lysol contains phenols and dioxin (Agent Orange).   

Fungicides used on fruit trees in the Okanagan, BC and in south-western Ontario have been found to cause babies in both areas being born with no eyes or very tiny eyes.

When using Chlorine, antiseptics or bleach in industrial areas, you are required to wear impervious protective clothing, hard hats, boots, gloves, apron or coveralls, chemical goggles or full face shield and use in well ventilated areas. .   

When using Easy Off make sure all your skin is covered - wear protective clothing, do not breathe in and don’t get on your enamel, (if this product will hurt the enamel on your stove, can you imagine what it will do to us.)

Air fresheners desensitize the nerves in your nose so you cannot smell.

NTA is a substitute for phosphate to make cheap suds.

1970 - NTA’s were banned in North America

1980 - Lobbying by Proctor & Gamble brought back the use of NTA’s in our products.

NTA’s mean more suds - more suds mean less clean - more toxic danger!

Studies on the suds in toothpaste found the suds to be the same as laundry soap.

Our immune system is very powerful, like a janitorial system. Giving our bodies good nutrition means our body can repair itself and be able to handle what we face in the world.

Household chemicals cause all kinds of symptoms - from cardiovascular problems, panic attacks, anxiety attacks to bedwetting.   

Eliminating the cause of the environmental illness is more effective and much less expensive than treating the symptom.

Prevention - 80% - 90% effective   
Treatments-50%-60% effective -       

What seems to make the most sense?
January 17, 2008 - Thursday 

Current mood:  ecstatic
Category: Life
This was sent to me from a friend and I figured EVERYONE could use it right about now...

My line of work is in petroleum for about 31 years now, so here are some tricks to get more of your money’s worth for every gallon.

Here at the Kinder Morgan Pipeline where I work in San Jose, CA we deliver about 4 million gallons in a 24-hour period thru the pipeline. One day is diesel the next day is jet fuel, and gasoline, regular and premium grades. We have 34-storage tanks here with a total capacity of 16,800,000 gallons.

1. Only buy or fill up your car or truck in the early morning when the ground temperature is still cold . Remember that all service stations have their storage tanks buried below ground. The colder the ground the more dense the gasoline, when it gets warmer gasoline expands, so buying in the afternoon or in the evening....your gallon is not exactly a gallon.

In the petroleum business, the specific gravity and the temperature of the gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, ethanol and other petroleum products plays an important role. A 1-degree rise in temperature is a big deal for this business. But the service stations do not have temperature compensation at the pumps.

2. When you’re filling up do not squeeze the trigger of the nozzle to a fast mode. If you look you will see that the trigger has three (3) stages: low, middle, and high. In slow mode you should be pumping on low speed, thereby minimizing the vapors that are created while you are pumping. All hoses at the pump have a vapor return. If you are pumping on the fast rate, some of the liquid that goes to your tank becomes vapor. Those vapors are being sucked up and back into the underground storage tank so you’re getting less worth for your money.

3. One of the most important tips is to fill up when your gas tank is HALF FULL or HALF EMPTY . The reason for this is, the more gas you have in your tank the less air occupying its empty space. Gasoline evaporates faster than you can imagine. Gasoline storage tanks have an internal floating roof. This roof serves as zero clearance between the gas and the atmosphere, so it minimizes the evaporation. Unlike service stations, here where I work, every truck that we load is temperature compensated so that every gallon is actually the exact amount.

4. Another reminder. If there is a gasoline truck pumping into the storage tanks when you stop to buy gas, DO NOT fill up--most likely the gasoline is being stirred up as the gas is being delivered, and you might pick up some of the dirt that normally settles on the bottom.

Hope this will help you get the most value for your money.

January 17, 2008 - Thursday 

Current mood:  aggravated
Category: Life
Commonly used products can make living in your home hazardous to your health

BY SUSAN STEVENS Daily Herald Health Writer
Posted Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Most calls to poison control centers are from acute exposures. A toddler swallows a handful of pills. A man drinks pesticides stored in an old pop bottle.

It’s the hidden toxins that might be more insidious.

Household cleaners, plastic food containers, even the flame retardant in your sofa cushions leach chemicals into the air and onto your skin. They persist in the blood and make their way into women’s breast milk.

Scientists and advocacy groups admit we don’t know for sure how bad these are for you. Human tests have never been conducted on most of the 18,000 chemicals produced each year. But evidence is mounting. Some of the worst chemicals have already been banned, and states are looking at stricter regulations for others.

Many of these toxins are lurking just behind your front door.

Take a deep breath -

Surprisingly, the air inside your home can be more polluted than what’s outside - even if you live in a busy urban area, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Modern building materials, furniture, everyday cleaning solutions and other household products release organic chemicals that linger in the still air of a well-insulated home.

Even if you are vigilant, chemicals can enter your home in unexpected ways.

Labels advise using paint strippers, adhesive removers and spray paints in well-ventilated areas, but gases can leak even from closed containers. The products contain methylene chloride, which causes cancer in animals.

Carbon monoxide and benzene - a known human carcinogen present in auto exhaust - can leak from an attached garage right through porous drywall and into the house, said Leeann Sagula, owner of Healthy Home Consulting, a home environment business in Pennsylvania.

"The room above the garage is not the room you want to have for your nursery," Sagula said. "It’s probably one of the least healthy rooms in your home."

The glues, paints and adhesives holding your house together can pollute the air, too. Off-gassing from new construction can irritate the eyes, nose and throat, said Dr. Jerrold Leikin, a toxicologist at Rush University Medical Center and author of a toxicology handbook.

Pressed-wood products emit formaldehyde, which at elevated levels can cause wheezing in people with asthma. Usually, there are no permanent effects, Leikin said.

But you could be dosing yourself repeatedly; plug-in air fresheners release a steady stream of pleasantly scented formaldehyde into your home.

Scientists are uncertain how much exposure, or how long, is necessary for many of these chemicals to harm your health. Some people are more sensitive than others. Those with asthma or pulmonary conditions often react more strongly.

"Most people don’t realize that the air can be dangerous," said Glen Ellyn resident Nicholas Nardella, owner of Environmental Technology Solutions, a firm specializing in indoor air quality. "They figure if you can’t see it and you’re breathing, you feel fine. But sometimes you feel nauseous, you feel weak, maybe your kids are always sneezing."

Nardella’s firm recently retrofitted several rooms at the Hilton O’Hare Airport with hardwood floors, non-vinyl wallpaper and all-cotton bedding. All the building materials, from the furniture stain to the bathtub caulk, are free of volatile organic compounds. The cleaning staff will use only non-toxic products.

The rooms are so pure that if a maid accidentally sprays Lysol, an alarm will sound. The hotel is planning to replicate its "Enviro Rooms" in other cities to cater to travelers with asthma, allergies and chemical sensitivities.

Nardella is taking the technology home. He’s building an Enviro Room for his 4-year-old daughter, who has asthma.

You don’t have to gut your house to make it healthier. When Sagula built a new home in St. Charles two years ago, she and her husband couldn’t afford hardwood floors in every room. Chemical-free, "green" building materials were beyond their budget.

So they installed air cleaners on each floor, cleaned the ducts before they moved in and kept the windows open so fresh air could flush out chemicals that are more prevalent in new construction. When they moved in, Sagula didn’t suffer any of the headaches, joint pain or respiratory symptoms she experienced in a previous new house.

"It’s just amazing with what little we did the difference it made," she said.

Sagula has since moved to Pennsylvania, where she advises clients on ridding their homes of toxins. The biggest problem, she said, is the harsh chemicals in cleaning products.

"If it’s ’fatal if swallowed’ or it has to be used in a well-ventilated area, chances are you can find a safer alternative," Sagula said.

TV is bad for you -

Some toxins arrive incognito, in products without ingredient labels.

The flame-retardant chemicals used in thousands of household appliances and textiles can leach out into your home. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, have turned up in dust bunnies, dryer lint and the gray film that accumulates inside windows. Children, who tend to stick
dirty hands in their mouths, appear particularly at risk of exposure.

PBDEs persist in the environment and build up in your body over a lifetime. Scientists have detected them in women’s breast milk, human hair and fat cells. In lab animals, PBDEs disrupt thyroid hormone balance and alter brain development.

This spring Illinois legislators joined five other states and the European Union to phase out penta and octa, two types of PBDEs often used in appliances like televisions, computers and coffee makers. After 2006, retailers can’t order new stock with penta or octa.

It was a largely symbolic victory. Once states like California began banning penta and octa, major U.S. chemical manufacturers quit producing them. The focus has shifted to deca, the third major PBDE compound, which is widely used in upholstery, mattresses and other textiles.

Illinois’ new legislation calls on public health officials to analyze deca’s effects and report to the General Assembly by 2006.

Manufacturers could switch to less-toxic flame retardants, or use chemicals that are bonded to products so they don’t leach out, said Frances Canonizado, environmental advocate for Illinois Public Interest Research Group. Dell, Apple and Sony stopped using PBDEs. Ikea’s furniture is PBDE-free.

"Companies have the ability to use safer materials," Canonizado said. "We can’t as consumers sit idly by not knowing what we are being exposed to."

Making life easier

Convenience might come at a cost. Nonstick and stain-resistant coatings typically contain perfluorochemicals, or PFCs. They show up in Teflon, Scotchguard, Stainmaster and Gore-Tex. They’re in cookware, clothing, wallpaper, paint and food packaging, including some McDonald’s paper products.

They’re also in us. PFCs turn up in the blood of more than 95 percent of Americans tested. Yet they remain something of a mystery. Scientists aren’t sure how they get into our cells or accumulate in the environment. The EPA has launched an investigation to find out.

In animals, they cause cancer, birth defects and developmental problems, as well as high cholesterol. 3M, the maker of Scotchguard, has already reformulated its product in favor of less-toxic chemicals, but they remain in other household goods.

These chemicals are turning up in unexpected places, including the water supplies of cities with no large-scale commercial use.

One known source is cooking. Heating Teflon-coated pans to high temperatures releases the fumes that kill pet birds and sicken people temporarily.

DuPont says Teflon is safe.

Consumer advocates say the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act places too high a burden on the public; the EPA can require a manufacturer to test the safety of a new chemical, but only if the government can prove it poses an unreasonable health risk.

The sheer number of chemicals heading to market mean many have never been tested for toxicity.

"The EPA just doesn’t have the power to get health data before products go on the market," said Lauren Sucher, spokeswoman for the Environmental Working Group, a coalition of scientists and public policy advocates.

"Banning a chemical is an uphill battle," she said. "Consider that asbestos is still legal in the U.S. We can’t even ban asbestos and we know hard-core that it kills people."

Baby bottle battle

California lawmakers are considering a bill that would ban certain chemicals from plastic baby products.

Phthalates are in some soft vinyl toys and in cosmetics such as nail polish and hair spray. A study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives last month found that infant boys born to mothers exposed to phthalates had a higher chance of genital abnormalities.

The California proposal would also ban products intended for children that contain bisphenol A, or BPA, the key building block of hard, clear, polycarbonate plastics.

BPA is found in baby bottles, food storage containers and water bottles such as Nalgene. It’s also used in resins that coat the inside of food cans and in dental sealants for children.

BPA’s health effects have been hotly debated. Some studies - including all of those funded by the industry - show no ill effects. But evidence is mounting that the chemical causes reproductive abnormalities in lab animals at low doses.

Much of that evidence has come in the past five years, said Frederick vom Saal, a biology professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia who has studied BPA for a decade. The last time the EPA assessed the health risks of BPA was in the 1980s.

"This chemical acts like the estrogen in birth control pills," vom Saal said. "As an adult man or woman, you are putting a sex hormone into your body that’s going to alter your reproductive system. You decrease fertility. You cause sperm abnormalities."

No human studies have been conducted, however, and whether BPA harms human health remains controversial. The plastics industry says polycarbonate plastic is safe and that small amounts of BPA pose no health hazard.

In studies, exposing plastic to the heat of a microwave, dishwasher or hot foods caused more BPA to migrate into food. Heating degrades the chemical bond that holds polycarbonate plastic together. But some studies have detected leaching even at room temperatures. Heavily
scratched or worn plastic degrades faster.

Polypropelene and polyethylene plastics, which are marked with product codes 1, 2 or 5 on the bottom, appear safer, vom Saal said. The problem is polycarbonate is commonly added to other plastics and might not be on labels.

"There is no such thing as safe microwaveable plastic," vom Saal said. "As you heat it, you degrade the chemical bond. You can’t see this happening. You can’t taste it, you can’t smell it, but you are getting dosed at a higher and higher amount."

Toxic outlook

The long-term health effects of small doses of chemicals are difficult to study. They don’t always show up in blood tests, or if they did, effects might take decades to develop. Animal studies don’t necessarily translate into equivalent effects on human health.

"We need more data," said Dr. Helen Binns, a pediatrician at Children’s Memorial Medical Center in Chicago and a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ environmental health committee.

"The hard thing is sometimes the data come too late," she said. "The PCBs are out there. The DDT is out there."

The most common environmental hazards are nothing new. The EPA identifies lead as the top environmental health risk for children. Tobacco smoke is another killer, even when parents only smoke outside.

Other household products that contain potential hazards have in fact made our lives easier. Cooking your eggs in a nonstick pan means you can use less artery-clogging oil. Extra-strength cleaners make housework go faster. Plastic baby bottles don’t break. These are definite trade-offs.

"A lot of these are things that have made it more tolerable to live in our environment," Binns said. "We always need to approach their use with caution. Where clear, better alternatives exist, we need to choose the alternatives."
December 7, 2007 - Friday 

Current mood:  contemplative
Category: Fashion, Style, Shopping
AIR FRESHENERS FOUND TO CONTAIN TOXIC CHEMICALS

A recent study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that 12 out of14 air fresheners tested positive for harmful levels of pthalates, which areknown to cause reproductive problems and hormone disruption in humans.Neither the FDA nor the EPA conducts any spot checking of toxic chemicals inair freshener products. Of the tested products, the only two products thatdid not contain pthalates were Febreze Air Effects and Renuzit SubtleEffects. The other twelve products tested positive even though some of theproducts were labeled natural.

http://www.organicc onsumers. org/articles/ article_7326. cfm

I feel so blessed that 2 years ago I was introduced to an alternative so Inever have to be concerned with the ingredients of any products in my home.You, too, can switch stores and feel safe. Let me share the details with you soon.

Christina ~ 708-333-8827